Dreams of our mothers
Sen. Hillary's Clinton's poor showing in Washington raises an uncomfortable question: Why don't women support their own?
Like so many of my neighbors, I filed into an over-capacity community center in Seattle on Saturday, Feb. 9, to support my candidate for president. I'm a 29-year-old woman, and my candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
One of the first sights that struck me as I entered the stuffy caucus room was that of a bright-faced little girl, about 9, standing with her parents, obviously proud to be there, and smiling at anyone who came into eye contact. In the corner, a new mother and father bounced their 4-month-old baby girl on their knees. I thought to myself how wonderful it was that these parents brought their young daughters to witness the historic day when their voices would finally be represented in the highest office in the land.
When it came time to divide up by candidate, however, both sets of parents – with daughters in tow – clumped to the other side of the room, where the vast majority of my neighbors stood in support of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. All across Washington at the caucuses that day, those of us supporting Clinton were out-polled 2 to 1.
The speeches and conversations commenced. Most agreed both candidates were great. Many felt torn. We talked experience versus inspiration, dynasties versus the anti-establishment. We talked health care, Iraq, and foreign relations. We talked about who could best beat Arizona Sen. John McCain. But we didn't talk gender or, for that matter, race. Gender was completely absent from the dialogue, as it seems to have been throughout this presidential race.
A young female Obama supporter came up to me to ask me why I was supporting Hillary. I explained to her that in a country where women make up slightly more than 50 percent of the population, we have had 43 male Presidents in a row. Now along comes a tough, intelligent, compassionate female with good ideas and the experience and connections to put those ideas into action. She is by far the most qualified candidate in the race, and having dreamed of a country where women have equal access to power and leadership roles, Clinton represents a once-in-a-generation hope.
The woman looked at me somewhat blankly. She told me she considers herself a feminist, but she tries not to let that influence her decision. She admitted she thinks both Clinton and Obama are great candidates in terms of qualifications and positions on the issues but that she feels more inspired by Obama. Oratory skills and slogans are influencing factors for her, but not feminism?
And that's what's left me wondering. Why aren't more women rallying around the opportunity to elect the first woman president of the United States?
Would a young African-American man eschew taking racial pride into account when considering whether to support Obama? I hope not! In talking to my friends in that demographic, they certainly feel pride that one of their own is such a viable candidate, and it is absolutely a factor for why they support him.
When Gary Locke became the first Asian-American governor in U.S. history, I know young Asian Republicans who didn't agree with him on the issues but flocked to work on his campaign because they were so proud of one of their own crossing such an important barrier.
If the U.S. had been represented by 43 straight female presidents, would the men of this country sit back, complacent, when the first promising male candidate of their generation came along?
Ironically, lately I have heard more men than women flat-out tell me that it's time for a female president. From women I hear statements like, "We need change," or "I don't want to support someone who got there by riding her husband's coattails." If gender were a part of the dialog, we would be talking about the inherent sexism of those statements. We are holding the woman to higher standard than the men, and it seems to be women who are doing it.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton was instead simply Hillary Rodham, just a woman who was in Bill Clinton's law school class at Yale, what would be different today? Certainly her intelligence, drive, conviction, and deep calling for public service are all her own. The evidence of those qualities was there long before Bill came along. And yet, without him by her side, would she have been taken seriously as a Senate candidate? Perhaps. Would she be taken seriously as a candidate for president? Judging by the sparse number of similarly qualified women who have managed to climb to the top tier of elected office but are not running for president, the answer is probably not. Is she any less qualified than she would be without his coattails? Absolutely not. That is the sexist paradox. Meanwhile, without his famous last name and family connections, our current president wasn't well-qualified to be president and yet the dynasty issue was never a serious factor in either of his presidential runs.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 6:29 a.m. inappropriate
Ridiculous: So because I am not a woman, I cannot vote for HRC because she is not what I am. Fair is fair. After all, women should vote for HRC because she is a woman, too.
Rather than point out what qualities of policy or accomplishment the candidate has, this focuses on the chromosomes? How is that rational? This is tribal policies writ large.
I'm truly appalled that this proclamation about "supporting our sisterhood" is what passes for critical thinking.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 7:37 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Ridiculous: My thoughts exactly, Steve.
How is thinking a woman should vote for a candidate because that candidate is a woman any better than the age-old stereotype that women vote for the best-looking candidate? Just because a candidate gets this far, doesn't mean anyone should vote for that person to set some kind of precedent. I was shocked to read your analysis about the Obama supporter. Being inspired by someone isn't limited to "oratory skills and slogans." If you want to talk about sisterhood, why don't you talk about how the fight for women's suffrage was about winning the right to stand up for what women as individuals believe?
Politics should be about the issues and about who we as individuals believe is best qualified to lead this country. Regardless of the past, no one should ever vote for a candidate because their church, parents, or community said so. Vote for Hillary Clinton if you think she is the best candidate for the job. Voting for any other reason is just a giant step backward for women and the political freedom they have fought so hard to gain.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 9:41 a.m. inappropriate
RE: idiculous: Ms. Zoppi's lazy "biology as destiny" mode of thought is exactly what the suffragettes struggled so hard to overcome. It is a shame that this is what passes for meaningful discourse in such an important election cycle.
Furthermore, Sen. Clinton may represent a once-in-a-generation candidate in so much as she is part of failed and divisive political process which would seek to keep the same two families in the oval office for a staggering 24 years. However, to suggest that she is far and away the most capable, and inspiring potential female chief executive in the United States is a sad commentary on people's understanding of the profoundly positive contributions which so many remarkable woman make in many of our nation's most successful organizations.
Ms. Zoppi, it seems safe to assume that the dreams of a great many mothers would be that all Americans cast their vote on the basis of something much more meaningful than the gender of the candidate on the ballot.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 10:01 a.m. inappropriate
Why not?: I didn't read that Zoppi felt that Hillary had no other attributes to justify support than her gender. She says in the article, maybe you missed it, that she feels that Clinton is the most qualified candidate in the race. To make her point, that you read that she is supporting Clinton ONLY because she's a woman (or that she is asking other women to do the same) is condescending and sexist.
I believe Hillary is better qualified and has deeper more thoughtful positions on important issues like health care and energy. But I know, as I think most of us do, that either of these candidates would be a fine president and a needed change.
That said, it is TIME that we had a woman president in this country and it galls me, too, that we have such a great candidate before us and that women, in particular, are unable or unwilling to get behind her and break this ultimate glass ceiling.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 11:31 a.m. inappropriate
Career woman of the 1920s: Hillary Clinton considers herself a feminist, but she has a career path right out of my Grandmother's generation. Back in the 1920s and 30s, if you were an ambitious woman, unless you inherited a business, about your only path to power was to find a charismatic man and guide his career from behind the scenes. This is exactly how Hillary Clinton got to where she is, and I for the life of me can't understand why self-professed "feminists" don't consider her a disgusting sellout because of it.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 1:40 p.m. inappropriate
Well over 20-years ago, Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of Great Britain. Called the Iron Maiden for very good reason, there's not a Republican in the United States that wouldn't support a like-minded woman running on the GOP ticket. But we would do it because of her ideas, beliefs, values, policies and the like, not because she's a she.
Hillary Clinton is viscerally disliked by some 47% of the electorate. That means that for nearly half of America, she produces a political gag reflex no matter what. Should she be the Democratic nominee, how many voters will make their decision solely based upon this? Or upon wanting someone for the first time since January 1989 whose last name isn't either Bush or Clinton?
And who wants a President whose idea of a health care plan includes garnishing wages to pay premiums? What's next? Jackboots and the rubber hose for picking the wrong doctor?
While it is true that people often vote contrary to their beliefs, before they'll do that, the candidate has to actually have beliefs. Ronald Reagan attracted a lot of more liberal voters because people trusted him and knew that what he said was what he believed - and they liked him personally. With Hillary Clinton, it's a given that she has no core values other than ones that are poll driven and focus group tested - and she reminds so many of either an ex-wife or a mother-in-law. Her sense of entitlement rubs people the wrong way.
Thank you, but no.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 1:55 p.m. inappropriate
universal health care: How do you think Universal Health is usually paid for? Taxes. How do you think they collect taxes when you don't pay? They garnish your wages. Get real. You can't have real universal health care unless everyone pays in, that's how it works. Obama's plan is just another health insurance plan. Justify your hatred for Hillary on the back of some other petty grievance.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 2:30 p.m. inappropriate
Discourtesy: The thoughts of this woman were written in a heartfelt way. Why is it necessary to insult or degrade her? I could understand disagreeing with her but some of the comments went over the line. It is not necessary to degrade someone else to advocate your choice. Courtesy is something lacking in this campaign. I do not see Obama acting that way. But his supporters are exhibiting it widespread across the Web. Many talk about what a "scorched earth" Clinton and her supporters "will" run, yet they need to look at themselves in the mirror.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 3:08 p.m. inappropriate
There's something really creepy about how HRC waffled all over the place on how she plans to pay for all this. That garnishmenet is even on the table tells me that press gangs and debtors' prisons aren't far behind.
The Piper
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 5:11 p.m. inappropriate
Stop, Look, LISTEN: What I found was really creepy was the 6 men that were at the first causcus I have ever attended with sweatshirts on that said, "Bros versus Hoes" and Barack and Hillary pictured on their shirts. It was frightening and eye opening at the same time. I was ashamed and embarrassed for them. Voting may be a right, but to me it is also a privilege . One side was much more aggressive with no one seeming to call any order to the proceedings and it was obvious there was no changing anyone's minds. Are we afraid already. Think of how it will be in a year and say a prayer before any of you vote. We need to be guided not bullied.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 5:35 p.m. inappropriate
Thank you: Leah, your thoughtful article articulates perfectly how I felt leaving my caucus on Saturday. I'm sorry that the gentlemen posting have used such vitriol in condemning your words when obviously they missed the point entirely. As a young woman in politics, the situations I face daily have taught me how rampant sexism is in this and all professions, how scary the undercurrent is, and how impressive it is that Hillary stands where she does today despite all of that. Thank you for being one of the voices for me, for my mom, for my friends, and for our future daughters, and, perhaps most importantly, for all of the women who don't get it but need us to keep fighting.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 5:38 p.m. inappropriate
Feminist Mom for Obama: I'm a mother of a young girl. I'm also a feminist who has lived long enough to learn that one's gender does necessarily equate to one's passion for, or effectiveness in, challenging the patriarchy and creating equity for women and other minorities.
While I greatly respect and will vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, I supported Edwards (for his courageous antipoverty stand) and currently support Obama, with high hopes that his broad appeal will enable a transformative presidency.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 6:49 p.m. inappropriate
Leah you are a brave one: It really takes courage to know how hard the wind is blowing, yet still stick your neck up and reason with your heart. I too long for a day. The day when we go beyond rallying for one leader who's to show us the way.
I 'd like to be still alive when we go beyond winner-take-all majorities to the real potential of democracy–the concept of citizenship as the life-long learning that enables us all to reason together better and better. The internet is promising, but troubling. It's like suddenly regaining one's hearing or sight, the new sense is too loud or too bright.
So the one advantage I can see to long, long elections in an internet age is that it buys us some time to get used to and tame this all trying to reason at once. God Bless America.
Posted Mon, Feb 11, 9:47 p.m. inappropriate
Would love a woman, but not that woman: I'm a woman, so I guess I get to give a personal response to this article.
I was twelve when Title IX was enacted and thirteen when Roe v. Wade was decided. I remember when women were "Mrs. Husband's Name." As I was growing up, messages changed from "Be a secretary" to "Be a lawyer," from "Be a nurse" to "Be a doctor." I am aware of the debt that I owe to all the women (and the men who supported them) who came before me and made it possible for me to live my life as I choose to live it.
If Hillary Rodham were running for president, I would examine her credentials as I would any other politician's: the accomplishments are probably a little shaded, the resume is probably a little puffed, there's probably some wallpaper hiding a few things that aren't too flattering. But she's interviewing for a job, and that's what job seekers do: they market themselves.
But she's running as Hillary Clinton, which means that she's carrying Bill's baggage along with her own, and that long ago became way too large to qualify as carry-on. She hitched her star to his, and since she's now claiming 35 years of experience, that means that all that transpired when she was First Lady of Arkansas as well as First Lady of the US is part of her candidate profile.
We all saw the partisan showdown between Bill Clinton and the GOP majority that started with the mid-term elections of his first term and continued unabated until he left office. Make no mistake, the GOP was aiming its artillery at Hillary, too. And it's still trained on her. A Hillary Clinton presidency would hand this country back to the Republicans; moreover, it would probably be a very long time before another woman was elected president. Not a great legacy. And no matter what well thought out policies and plans she presents, if she loses a Congressional majority--and I believe she will at the mid-term--she won't be able to get anything accomplished.
I would love to see a woman elected president, but I do not believe that Hillary Clinton is that woman.
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 8:07 a.m. inappropriate
It's Hillary herself who is persuading me not to vote for her: I'm a feminist, and am delighted that a woman is a serious contender for the nomination this year. Beyond that I think it would be sexist to blindly support her just because she's a woman.
I respect HRC as a Senator, and admire her intelligence and her resilience. Personally I think she'd make a great Secretary of State, because I think she excels at working within existing systems creatively, tenaciously, forging unlikely partnerships, disarming opponents and finding common ground. And doing her homework consummately well.
But when I think about her national leadership track record on big policy issues where the public needed to be led into a new way of thinking and seeing--the health care debacle of 1994, the Iraq War vote in 2003--I'm worried. I don't see her as being of Presidential caliber.
I saw her interviewed by Katie Couric the other evening, and Clinton's answers gave me more to worry about. She stoutly denied ever having moments of uncertainty, she said she thinks a leader's "confidence" amounts to refusing to reflect--she was reminding me of "the decider" himself!
In this campaign, I hear Obama passionately calling us to say, "Yes, we can!" I hear Clinton saying, "Yes, I can!" and it sounds a little defensive to me.
I think some of her experience hasn't served her well; she's become a Beltway insider, with a set of Belway blinders. She courts now this constituency, now that one, she drops casual-sounding sound bites that feel focused-grouped, and for all her claims to experience, if she ran the country the way she's running her campaign then we could expect a lot of blunders and missed opportunities. And I don't think she's ever had the talent of an Abraham Lincoln or an FDR who could call on Americans to dream bigger and to get seriously mobilized in a time of crisis--which is what we're in, now.
At my caucus on Saturday, some Hillary supporters expressed concerns that the Obama contingent was being too soft-brained, too irrationally attached to a candidate who makes us feel good. One woman even compared him to George W. Bush (back when he was popular) in this kind of appeal. But I get the sense that, of the two Democratic contenders this year, Obama *gets* that we are in a grave national crisis, and has the rare talent to inspire people to move instead of staying frozen in despair or panic. (George W. Bush, by contrast, appealed to people's fear and lust to be controlled by a "strong man.")
Finally, Hillary seems to me at less than her best in this role as Presidential candidate--even though I know she sincerely cares about urgent issues facing the nation, in her campaigning it somehow seems to all be about her and how much she deserves this job.
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 8:48 a.m. inappropriate
Women aren't ready for a woman President: I have been thinking, analyzing and writing about the rampant sexism manifested during this primary campaign season at www.MenForHillary.org (www.HillaryNowObamaLater.org). Whether Senator Clinton becomes president or not, her run for the presidency will have put another solid nail in the coffin of anti-female sexism. It will become almost as unacceptable as racism. I say "almost," because women still don't get it, and it will likely take another great woman to come along before women will get it.
Many factors are operating to keep women, and, especially younger women, from voting for Senator Clinton. You will note that in most instances, it has been older women who are clearly voting for Senator Clinton. In my opinion, there is a generational backlash in younger women against the women of Senator Clinton's generation. In other words, NOT anti-feminism, but anti-boomer. In my opinion, younger women are making a big mistake by following their hearts instead of their heads, but what can you do.
Also, I think younger women actually believe that sexism does NOT limit them like it did in the "old" days, so it is not as important to them to "make a statement" by voting for a qualified woman. No matter how you argue it, the facts are that Clinton is clearly as qualified as Obama.
Personally, I find it quite interesting that there are so MANY people saying they are voting for Obama because he did not "vote" for the Iraq war. Where were all those people when Congress was authorizing the President? Obviously, a huge amount of the people who have voted for Obama based on his vote to not authorize the President are people who essentially supported the vote to authorize the President. So, what is this? Voters absolving themselves of their OWN mistakes by aligning with someone who did not make the mistake they made? Hmmm... sounds like group absolution to me. Sure, now we know that Obama rolled the dice the right way, but, frankly, Obama's "holier than thou" attitude will NOT get him very far in his so-called quest for "bipartisanship."
The other factors that will keep women from voting for a woman are detailed at www.MenForHillary.org (www.HillaryNowObamaLater.org), but, briefly, one of them is documented by studies which show that both men AND women overestimate the intelligence of men (it is a hangover from all the years of patriarchy).
The author, Ms. Zoppi, has it absolutely right, women are not ready to break the ultimate American glass ceiling and are finding themselves caught up in the usual manipulations of men -- the most classic being how well men can make women feel guilty for voting for a woman because she is a woman. You can call that "reverse-sexism" if you want, but quite frankly, just how do you bring about a change in the balance of gender power without exerting the power? Hmmm... interesting ploy by men to keep women down. I learned long ago, growing up in LA, that you can't play by the rules of those in power if you want to change the balance of power. That's why they have those rules -- to stay in power. My advice to women -- "don't let men or other women make you feel guilty for wanting to vote for a woman because she is at least as equally qualified."
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 9:58 a.m. inappropriate
Free Women Have the Right to Choose: It is not about supporting our own. It is about having earned the right to make up our own minds about who to support - to mentor the smart and capable women younger than us, to decide that Governor Gregoire is a good governor and that Ann Coulter is a shrill waste of space, and to make those decisions not based on gender alone but on our honest evaluation of those women's capabilities.
I'm no huge Oprah fan or follower, but I can respect her (both as a woman and as a business genius), and I think she did a fine job of explaining why a free woman is free to choose a candidate other than Hillary. A free woman has the right to think for herself, to decide for herself and to choose whichever candidate she wants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh53UF1xdGg
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 12:45 p.m. inappropriate
WA Women HAVE BEEN electing women: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this author, but disagree with her presumption that we uterus-bearing beings are hereby directed to only vote for women. When Leah raises the question of whether Hillary Rodham would get elected over Hillary Clinton, Leah has found the golden goose. I don't dislike Hillary so much as I dislike the Clinton-Bush dynasty. I am as tired of Bill Clinton as I am of Bush. Is it fair? Is LIFE fair?
I am not voting for Hillary, in part because I have the freedom and education to make a choice. But I did vote for, campaign for, and contribute to a very long list of women.
We here in Washington State have had not one, but two female governors. We have two female senators. We have had female Members of Congress going back decades, to Julia Butler Hansen in Southwest Washington. For a while, the majority of legislators in Washington were female. And in 1992, the voters of our state, male and female, black and white, rich and poor, East and West, swept women into the statewide offices of Attorney General, Lands Commissioner, Insurance Commissioner, and State Supreme Court.
Women in Washington have always had sufferage, and Washington voters legalized abortion years before Roe v. Wade.
Please don't tarnish our outstanding and progressive approach towards women just because there is an absence of support in Washington for this particular female presidential candidate.
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 1:05 p.m. inappropriate
Gregoire lost Hillary the nomination: Elsewhere in this discussion a stat of Hilary having 47% negative is mentioned - don't know if this is true, but if lined everyone in a line from negative to positive I'd come in somewhere in the upper 50 range on the postive side. I am aware of and concerned about those facts, but not so much so as to not vote for her (McCain is likely the only R I'd consider)
Hillary's negatives are reinforced by the actions of her feminist supporters. Here in Washington State Queen Christine is very much the leader of these folks, even though she has endorsed Obama. (perhaps because Hilary wouldn't meet her bullying demands?)
It's unfortunate that she beat Sims in the primary last time around. Too bad we don't have caucuses for our governors races filled with activists that can recognize character -like Sims and Obama, as well as spoiled rotten bullies like Gregoire.
At this point it is likely up to the Super Delegates to save Hilary - perhaps going after Gregoire would give them some more credibility, on balance?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 3:38 p.m. inappropriate
Mistaken Identity Politics: The premise of this article - that women should vote for women because they are women - couldn't be more antithetical to feminism.
First, by suggesting that women vote based on the candidate's sex, the author is, ironically enough, playing right into the old arguments against women's suffrage - namely that women are incapable of making rational choices and are too easily swayed by superficial characteristics like charm and good looks and now the nature of the candidate's genitalia.
Second, to the extent that feminism is only about women, it is an inherently angry and hypocritical perspective. Most intelligent feminists (male or female) understand that feminism is really just an application of humanism, and they have evolved their thinking to include concern for the rights of minorities, homosexuals, and even white guys (gasp!).
Third, as a practical matter, a feminist ought to vote for the candidate who will best advance his (not a typo) cause, and that's not necessarily a woman. Many people see in Obama a natural born leader who can articulate liberal, humanist principles in a way that makes them sound like common sense. They see someone who isn't afraid to play the game differently, and who is winning nonetheless. They see someone who is redefining American politics by his very example. They see success. They see greatness.
And they see the alternative, as accomplished as she may be, as comparatively lackluster.
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 6:59 p.m. inappropriate
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/timeline/suffrage.htm
Posted Tue, Feb 12, 7:15 p.m. inappropriate
"Lackluster" is in the eye of the beholder (there is the rub): Hi Sean: I am assuming you are a man. Let's just assume that for the sake of argument. You sound like a man. Men (defined as the status quo ruling class in this discussion) love to make the rules so that they can stay in power... that is how it is done.
There is no such thing as reverse-sexism when the ruling class is men (do some reading at Reverse-Sexism and Reverse-Racism at GeneralDecay Blog at Newsvine.com).
Since "lackluster" is such a subjective state of mind, it can be easily influenced by biases. Believe me, there are many biases out there, and one of the most influential ones is sexism, which is far from dead and far more tolerated than racism at this point in time. Sean, my man, give yourself a little examination -- do you believe women are as smart as men?
I think Senator Clinton is FAR from lackluster and although she doesn't know how to preach, she knows how to talk the talk and give the eye-contact, and walk the talk. And, she is gorgeous beyond skin deep. The concept that she does not speak from the heart is just the usual mischaracterizations based on exposure to her ONLY through media snippets. Meet her in person, then talk to me about "lackluster."
Obama can't hold a candle to Hillary when it comes to courage and discipline. He is relatively untested and hasn't lost anything ever, as far as I know. Until we see how he does with losing and other character-building experiences, I will go with the time-tested warrior woman.
Posted Wed, Feb 13, 7:44 a.m. inappropriate
RE: "Lackluster" is in the eye of the beholder (there is the rub): "Men... love to make the rules so that they can stay in power..."
You've obviously never been married.
:-)
Posted Wed, Feb 13, 7:53 a.m. inappropriate
Just because she is a woman?: Are you really advocating that we vote for Sen. Clinton because she is female? Not because for her voting record or our own personal beliefs, but because she is a woman? Sorry, I don't vote based on gender.
Posted Wed, Feb 13, 11:53 a.m. inappropriate
You can pick up a tattered copy of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique at nearly every used book sale in town, old pics of Gloria Steinem in her Playboy Bunny outfit circulate the Internet faster than get-rich-quick letters from the Nigerian Oil Minister, and mentions of Bea Arthur and Maude are greeted these days mostly with quizzical looks and queries - by 30-something and younger women - of, "Who?"
Bra burning went the same way as the leisure suit...thankfully.
But victimization rolls on unabated. And some women wonder why they aren't taken seriously?
To contend that women have some moral obligation to their gender, their daughters, their mothers, etc., to vote for women is silly, and it begs the question: vote for what woman?
The State of Washington never had a better member of Congress than former Representative Linda Smith, who is a political hero (heroine?) of mine. I'd follow that woman over a cliff! But it's because of her positions on the issues, not because she is a she.
Some years back, former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick made Presidential noises, and I thought then that she would have made a strong President. But it was because of her positions on the issues, not because she was a she.
In this thread, I've already expressed my admiration for Margaret Thatcher, certainly more woman in a nano-second than Hillary Clinton will ever be in her lifetime. Yet and again, I loved Maggie because of what she believed and stood for, not because she was a she.
Let's not forget recently departed former Representative Jennifer Dunn from Bellevue. I didn't agree with everything she stood for, but damn if she didn't get things done! And she was successful because of her innate political skills, not because she was a she.
Ladies, it's the new millenium; old and ancient grievances need to be laid to rest...right alongside the increasingly dim prospects of Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign.
The more the general public gets to know Hillary, the less the general public likes Hillary and the more they remember why they collectively breathed a sigh of relief when she and Bill blew town back in January 2001.
The woman is an abyss of ambition and a grasper, and no matter how you package it, a majority of the American people see her as insincere and lacking in character. What did she do with the White House China again?
Want to hitch your feminist wagon to a female star on the rise? Check out Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Smart, a reformer in the best sense, damn good looking, and one of the best upsetters-of-apple-carts to come down the pike since, well, since Linda Smith!
But remember...she's a Republican! Nevertheless, under several of the prevailing gender identification and loyalty theories pervading this thread, her partyaffiliaiton is trumped by her gender, so no matter what she believes, support for her is de rigeuer!
Her name is being circulated among Republicans as a VP possibility, which is more than HRC will ever get! So, can I put you down in support of her? Let me know...
The Piper
Posted Wed, Feb 13, 4:34 p.m. inappropriate
Obama Unites Instead of Divides: I find it highly offensive that it is suggested that we should vote for Hillary Clinton merely because she is a woman. I also find it offensive to say that she is the most qualified candidate. Merely saying this enough does not make it true, as the recent wins of Barack Obama suggest. It is now the time to move past using feminism and race to define who is the better candidate. Only when we look at a candidate for their leadership abilities instead of gender or race will there be a successful candidate. Barack Obama has moved past those definitions and clearly the people of this nation are saying so with their votes.
Obama is clearly the only candidate on either side of the aisle who will be able to unite this country and move forward. Both Clinton and McCain are divisive candidates. Why is the democratic leadership ignoring Clinton's obvious "unlikeability"? Why is it suggested that we ignore the fact that she is married to Bill Clinton and look at her for her own abilities? She herself has identified that as part of her experience. As one half of an active political and professional couple, I would never suggest that my husband's accomplishments are mine as Clinton has done. While visiting a local bookstore today and buying a copy of a magazine with both democratic candidates on the front, the young 30 something woman working the cash register told me she registered to vote for the first time because Barack Obama inspired her to vote and make her voice heard. She was sad after finding out that since she didn't vote in a caucus her vote didn't really matter. How fraudulent is that of the state Democratic party? Let's hope that party "super delegates" pay attention to those who did caucus and cast a vote and support Obama.
Posted Thu, Feb 14, 9:56 a.m. inappropriate
Thank you to Washington state's critical thinkers: I appreciate so many thoughtful and considered comments. I also like this online newspaper.
The Clinton presidential administration was not honorable and respectful to the citizens of this country. Iraq was bombed during the Clinton administration. Clinton gave the country the WTO, NAFTA and took mothers away from their babies. Clinton didn't support unions. Hillary had a strong role in Wal-Mart.
I was raised Democrat and supported many Democrats in my life. I would not and will not vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm looking at Obama and willing to give consideration to his candidacy.
I just read an article where the Democrats and Republicans started becoming one back in the mid-1940's after the War.
Now many unions support both Democrats and Republicans having carved out their own bureaucratic niches and power spots.
When are the good everyday people going to get a break?
I'm waiting to see what Nader does.
Who said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?
Posted Thu, Feb 14, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
A note from your sister.: Dear Ms. Zoppi,
I find it highly offensive that you think of your "sisters" as self-hating sexists. If there is sexism in this type of coverage of the Democratic Primary/Caucus, I think it can be found in your rhetoric, which is fundamentally flawed in its oversimplification of the female thought process. As a woman and your "sister", may I ask you to consider the following questions?
Why is the average Obama supporter more educated than the average Clinton supporter?
Why is the average Obama supporter younger than the average Clinton supporter?
Why is it that boomer women support Clinton while younger women support Obama?
Why is it that our women and men in the military support Obama over Clinton?
Why is it that lobbyists and big businesses support Clinton over Obama?
Why is Obama raising more total campaign contributions than Clinton, although his average contributor is giving smaller amounts than Clinton's contributors?
Why is it that Obama voted against the very disturbing telecom immunity legislation today, while Clinton was a no-show?
Why is it that Obama has a higher rating for his environmental record with the league of conservation voters than Clinton?
Why is it that Obama spoke out against supporting the war in Iraq, while Clinton voted for it, never read the National Intelligence Estimate before she voted and has never clearly stated her regret for that decision?
Why did Clinton recently infuse her campaign with her own personal fortune despite her husband/our former president's own admission that personally financing one's campaign was a violation of the spirit of campaign finance reform?
Why is Clinton getting far more pork/earmarks than ANY member of congress for her friends in New York at the expense of the taxpayers here in Washington and across this nation?
Why is it that when Clinton is in India, she talks about the continuation of outsourcing but while she is in the U.S. she talks about stemming the tide of outsourcing?
Why am I concerned over Clinton's diplomacy skills when she jokes loosely and publicly about President Putin as being soul-less? (Okay, he probably is soul-less but damn sister, have some tact!)
Why won't Clinton release her personal finance records until she has secured the democratic nomination?
Why was Clinton the LAST senator to back the congressional pledge to end torture?
Why did Clinton break the pledge she, Obama and Edwards made not to campaign in Florida and Michigan when those states broke the Democratic Party's rules and moved up their primary dates? And why is she now trying to broker a deal with the Democratic Party to claim the delegates from these states?
Why would anyone who wants a Democrat in the White House vote for Clinton when poll after poll after poll shows that only Obama can beat McCain?
I could go on and on. I have a lot of questions about my "sister" Hillary and her campaign to be the next president. I don't ask these questions because I don't respect her as a woman and as a candidate. I ask these questions precisely because I DO respect her as a woman and as a candidate and as such she should be held accountable for her record as should her competitors. I love her as I love all humanity. But no, you don't have to be a sexist to vote against her. You just have to be paying attention.
Yours truly,
Another woman for Obama
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 7:24 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Why not?: I didn't read that Zoppi felt Hillary was the best candidate because of her issues, but that she is puzzled that women don't want to vote for Hillary and support her because she is a woman. Which is, of course, sexist.
Nice that you deal with thoughts opposing your own as "condescending." I'm supposed to be chastened or something by your playing of the High Moral Card?
Posted Wed, Feb 20, 7:28 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Discourtesy: Oh my. Are you new to the Clintons or something? "Scorched earth" is exactly how the Clintons approach politics.
If the Queen can't take criticism from her own country, how is she going to handle it when foreign countries give her a hard time?